Criminal Law – Rape and Murder of Minor Girl – Sentencing – Appellant convicted for the offences under IPC and POCSO Act, sentenced to death by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court – Supreme Court commuted death sentence to life imprisonment, taking into account restorative justice principles and mitigating circumstances – Sentence of imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of life imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant's natural life for the offence under Section 376A IPC [Paras 36-45].

Restorative Justice – Opportunity for Rehabilitation – Supreme Court emphasized giving offenders an opportunity to repair the damage caused and become socially useful individuals – Balancing retributive and restorative justice principles in sentencing [Paras 43].

Circumstantial Evidence – Doctrine of Last Seen – Prosecution proved that the appellant was last seen with the victim, and there was no plausible explanation from the appellant for the victim's condition – DNA evidence confirmed appellant's involvement – Conviction upheld based on circumstantial evidence and corroborating medical reports [Paras 23-32].

Fair Trial – Right to Legal Representation – Supreme Court noted that the trial court provided legal assistance to the appellant, ensuring a fair trial – No evidence suggesting procedural unfairness or deprivation of legal rights [Paras 33-35].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Death sentence commuted to imprisonment for a period of twenty years for the offence under Section 376A IPC – Conviction and sentence for other offences under IPC and POCSO Act affirmed – All punishments to run concurrently [Paras 43-45].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – High Court’s Duty – High Court must reappreciate entire evidence in detail in a first appeal against acquittal – General observations without detailed reappreciation inadequate – Presumption of innocence strengthened by trial court’s acquittal – Appeal allowed for reconsideration [Paras 1-8].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Powers of High Court – High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 378 CrPC – High Court entitled to reappreciate evidence independently – Presumption of innocence continues at appellate stage – High Court’s failure to reappreciate entire evidence constitutes a jurisdictional error [Para 6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Matter remanded back to High Court for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law.

Civil Procedure – Summary Suit – Leave to Defend – General Rule and Exception – Leave to defend should be granted unless the defendant has no substantial defence – Denial of leave is exceptional – Appellant raised triable issues regarding liability – High Court erred in denying leave – Appeal allowed with leave to defend granted [Paras 1-21].

Legal Interpretation – Order 37 Rule 3 CPC – Principles for Leave to Defend – Triable issues and fair defence entitle the defendant to unconditional leave – Conditions may be imposed if defence appears plausible but improbable – Denial of leave justified only if defence is frivolous or vexatious [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court and Trial Court judgments set aside – Appellant granted leave to defend – Trial Court to proceed with the trial, considering the appellant’s deposit of Rs. 40,00,000 as per Supreme Court's interim order.

Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation – Circumstantial Evidence – Seriousness of Offense – High Court's order granting bail without considering material evidence and gravity of the offense erroneous – Accused conspired with others to murder his wife for insurance money – Evidence shows call records and monetary motives – Bail granted on weak grounds reversed [Paras 1-10].

Legal Principles – Bail Considerations – Judicial Discretion – Factors for Granting Bail – Bail decisions must consider the nature of charges, severity of punishment, risk of absconding, and potential tampering with evidence – High Court failed to apply these principles adequately [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's bail order set aside – Respondent to surrender within one week – Trial to proceed based on evidence without influence from bail decision.

Service Law – Issuance of NOC – Appellant was appointed as a JBT Teacher in 2000 – Haryana Public Service Commission advertised 1647 posts of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in Haryana on 16.02.2016 – Appellant applied for the post of Assistant Professor (History) and requested a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the appointing authority – Despite applying timely for the NOC, it was not issued, and appellant's interviews were conducted provisionally – High Court's interim order allowed the interview without NOC – Appellant provisionally selected but final appointment withheld due to lack of NOC – NOC issued post-selection, but appointments already made – High Court dismissed appellant’s writ petitions for appointment despite provisional selection – Supreme Court found no fault of the appellant and attributed the delay to the employer – Held, appellant entitled to appointment, and respondent No.4, already appointed, to be accommodated without displacement [Paras 1-8].

Procedure – Fault on Part of Employer – Supreme Court recognized that delay in issuing NOC was solely due to employer's inaction – Appellant had no fault and had applied for NOC within stipulated time – Interim relief granted by High Court was adequate but not fulfilled timely by employer – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 for substantial justice [Paras 7-7.4].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court set aside – State directed to issue appointment order to appellant within two weeks – Appellant entitled to continuity in service but not back wages – Respondent No.4 to be accommodated on another vacant post without displacement [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Appellant convicted for the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl – Trial court awarded the death penalty, which was upheld by the High Court – Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years without remission – Emphasized the need to consider the possibility of rehabilitation and reformation, given the appellant’s age, socio-economic background, and lack of prior criminal antecedents – Found procedural lapses in ensuring a fair trial [Paras 1-19].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Section 354(3) CrPC mandates that death sentences should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases with special reasons recorded – Supreme Court reiterated the principle that awarding the death sentence is an exception and life imprisonment is the rule – Highlighted that the brutality of the crime alone is not sufficient for death penalty; the criminal's socio-economic background, mental state, and potential for reform must be considered – Appellant’s death sentence commuted to life imprisonment due to lack of evidence foreclosing reformation [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission – Noted the appellant’s young age, Scheduled Tribe background, and absence of previous criminal record – Directed that all mitigating factors must be considered before imposing the death penalty [Para 19].

Civil Procedure – Ex parte Decree – Appellants filed suit for declaration and possession – Trial Court passed ex parte decree – Respondent (defendant) preferred an appeal with a delay of 2 years and 7 months – First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal due to absence of delay condonation – High Court erroneously quashed both First Appellate Court’s dismissal and Trial Court’s ex parte decree – Supreme Court found High Court's procedure unsustainable, noting the appeal was regarding the First Appellate Court’s dismissal, not an Order IX Rule 13 CPC application [Paras 1-8].

Appellate Procedure – Delay Condonation – High Court's role in appellate procedure – High Court should have set aside First Appellate Court's dismissal for limitation and remanded the appeal for merit-based decision – High Court's direct quashing of the Trial Court’s decree was procedurally incorrect – First Appellate Court directed to revive the delay condonation application and proceed accordingly [Paras 5-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Matter remanded to First Appellate Court to restore appeal – Respondent permitted to revive delay condonation application – First Appellate Court to decide delay condonation and, if granted, proceed on merits – Procedural guidance provided for subsequent appellate actions if delay is not condoned [Para 8].

Insolvency Law – Resolution Applicant Eligibility – Sections 29A and 29A(h) of the IBC – Supreme Court held that "such creditor" in Section 29A(h) should be interpreted to include all similarly placed creditors after the initiation of the insolvency resolution process – The disqualification under Section 29A(h) is triggered by the existence of an enforceable guarantee that has been invoked by any creditor – The Court emphasized that the ineligibility pertains to the participation in the resolution process of the corporate debtor, ensuring a fair and transparent process [Paras 1-33, 53].

Statutory Interpretation – Purposive Interpretation – Court reiterated the principle of purposive interpretation, emphasizing that statutes must be construed to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy – The interpretation must align with the legislative intent and the overall objectives of the IBC, which aims to ensure a fair insolvency resolution process and prevent unscrupulous elements from participating [Paras 34-42].

Decision – Appeals allowed – The resolution plan submitted by the ineligible applicant was not maintainable under Section 29A(h) – However, considering the substantial progress in the implementation of the resolution plan, the Court decided not to disrupt the ongoing operations of the respondent – Plan implementation to continue to protect the interests of shareholders, employees, and ongoing projects [Paras 57-65].

Arbitration Law – Extension of Time and Contract Termination – Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Sole Arbitrator and the Single Judge, which granted the appellant an extension of time for completing the work and declared the termination of the contract by the respondent as wrongful – The Court emphasized that the Arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract clauses and the evaluation of evidence must not be reappreciated by the courts unless there is a manifest error or misconduct – Reaffirmed that the Arbitrator is the final arbiter of disputes and courts should not interfere with plausible interpretations and conclusions drawn by the Arbitrator [Paras 1-22].

Idle Hire Charges and Value of Machinery – Supreme Court reinstated the Sole Arbitrator's award for idle hire charges and the value of machinery to the appellant – Held that the Arbitrator had provided cogent reasons and relied on an undisputed valuation report and formula for calculating the compensation – The Court criticized the Appellate Court for reappreciating evidence and substituting its view for that of the Arbitrator, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction [Paras 23-28].

Judicial Interference – Scope and Limits – Reiterated that courts should not interfere with arbitral awards under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, unless there is an error apparent on the face of the award, misconduct by the Arbitrator, or if the Arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction – Cited precedents to emphasize limited judicial review and the finality of the Arbitrator’s findings [Paras 10-15, 28-29].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court set aside – Judgment of the Single Judge restored – Decree granted in favor of the appellant upheld along with interest [Para 30].